Republicans should push for guarantees regarding social programs

Discussion in 'Politics' started by miami_thomas, Sep 4, 2012.

  1. miami_thomas
    Offline

    miami_thomas VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +96
    Republicans need to push for making all Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, Medicaid, etc… to be required guarantees in the budget for at least 20 years. This way it can be properly budgeted and require funding be set aside for the future. The fact that these things are not guaranteed allows for the government to not budget future liabilities.
     
  2. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,936
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,676
    He said "guarantee" and "gov't" in the same paragraph. Some people never learn.
     
  3. miami_thomas
    Offline

    miami_thomas VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +96
    My purpose it so to force all these “Promised” benefits to be budgeted. Not just for the current year but for future liability as well.
     
  4. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    No offense here miami and frankly it's a good idea, your asking a Govt. that cannot even pass a budget for this nation or one to fund the FAA for an entire year or the Post Office before leaving on vacation, and one that has to argue over funding for a second jet engine for the F-35 which already has one, to actually perform a budget process that makes sense. In order to do that, you would first have to start with removing just about all the entrenched interests in Washington D.C. both Republican and Democrat as well as those on K Street.
     
  5. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,752
    Thanks Received:
    8,066
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,267
    Nothing any Congress does is "guaranteed." That's the way it will be so long as the next congress can undo everything the previous Congress did.
     
  6. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,752
    Thanks Received:
    8,066
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,267
    So you want politicians to tell voters the truth about the financial mess we are in?

    Good luck with that!
     
  7. miami_thomas
    Offline

    miami_thomas VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +96

    Agree but you argue it is to guarantee that the benefits are there in the near future. Then when Democrats or Republicans vote against it you point out they don’t want to guarantee the benefit will be there for the future. I think this could get passed simply by politicians not wanting to get pointed out as not wanting to guarantee benefits.
     
  8. miami_thomas
    Offline

    miami_thomas VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +96
    This measure is so that anytime we want to add a new social program you have to budget the liability for that program for the next 20 years. This will prevent people from lying about how much it costs.
     
  9. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,752
    Thanks Received:
    8,066
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,267
    You are terminally naive.
     
  10. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    There is a lot to be said for any program that the Govt. seeks to implement and have that program be fully funded so that benefits under that program are there for the life of that program. However, take Social Security for example had the Govt. not seen the trust fund as a place to borrow money from to fund other things from Defense to building roads, then perhaps it to would not need be at issue. The point is if someone wants to have a guarantee of benefits in a program like Social Security then they must first advocate for those sorts of programs to be fully funded, and not a source of revenue for spending other than what they are inteded for. Many people do not know for example that the Social Security is one of our nations largest debt holders along with China and frankly I do not think that was the intent of the program to be a source of revenue for the Govt. Sadly there are many interests in Washington that are going in many directions and not many of them have much to do with the overall health and welfare of the citizens of this nation and as such in order to the Govt. to manage a program where the benefits it promises are there for future generations are secure then you must first have people there who understand why and who they are actually they for.
     

Share This Page